Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
Revocation of a customs broker licence and forfeiture of security deposit for alleged breaches of regulations 10(a), 10(d), 10(e), 10(f) and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 turned on whether the broker failed core due diligence and advisory obligations. The charge under regulation 10(a) failed because the authorization was on record and its authenticity was undisputed, so later non-contact with the signatory could not invalidate it. The charges under regulations 10(f) and 10(n) failed as no specific special procedure was shown for the goods and stipulated online verification had been undertaken. Only regulation 10(d) was sustained for failure to advise the client appropriately; consequently, revocation and forfeiture were set aside as disproportionate, while a monetary penalty was upheld. - CESTAT
Revocation of a customs broker licence and forfeiture of security deposit for alleged breaches of regulations 10(a), 10(d), 10(e), 10(f) and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 turned on whether the broker failed core due diligence and advisory obligations. The charge under regulation 10(a) failed because the authorization was on record and its authenticity was undisputed, so later non-contact with the signatory could not invalidate it. The charges under regulations 10(f) and 10(n) failed as no specific special procedure was shown for the goods and stipulated online verification had been undertaken. Only regulation 10(d) was sustained for failure to advise the client appropriately; consequently, revocation and forfeiture were set aside as disproportionate, while a monetary penalty was upheld. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
